Fisheries committee  Yes, John. There's oversupply. Basically, if you have one group supplying 50% of the worldwide market or thereabouts, or 40% of B.C., and the illegal product.... Some of the numbers we get on illegal product come from the Canadian embassy in Tokyo. They suggest that the product exported into Japan from Canada legally is this amount, but the actual amount is that amount.

Fisheries committee  If I were a buyer and I had an option to buy legal stuff versus illegal stuff, of course the illegal stuff would be cheaper, for obvious reasons.

Fisheries committee  Yes, it has, sir. Not this year, because we had the election not to fish, but that being said, we elected not to fish because we have to get the horse in front of the cart. The increased production drives the price down. Fishermen elect not to fish, so the quota stays at approximately 400 tonnes, but 50% of the people aren't fishing or aren't participating.

Fisheries committee  The perception may do more damage to the price than the actual production.

Fisheries committee  To answer your question as quickly as I can, in 1994, for instance, about 100 tonnes came from San Francisco Bay and approximately 400 tonnes came from British Columbia. A total of 500 tonnes entered the Japanese market--give or take not counting illegal product. San Francisco Bay produces nothing now.

Fisheries committee  To answer your question, the government did enter the marketplace in 1996. They went out and bought two licences from individuals and transferred them to Indian bands. The value at that time was approximately $1.8 million. Since then, they've decided not to buy any more, and just issue quota.

Fisheries committee  Sir, with due respect, I think the DFO isn't the only government agency that rewards illegal demonstrations. If we refer to Caledonia, for instance...and it goes on and on, sir. But that's not for this committee--

Fisheries committee  Exactly. And if DFO were going to trade away spawn-on-kelp to the Heiltsuk for peace in the valley, then at least we should have been at the table to agree or disagree, or maybe negotiate on our own behalf, or at least be informed so that we know to go fishing or not to go fishing for that year.

Fisheries committee  No, and that's part of the problem. If the product is worth $28 a pound, $1 a pound here or there doesn't really.... It's a minor portion. But if the product is selling for $4 a pound and you already have a fee of $1 a pound going to the government and to monitoring, and Heiltsuk enters into the market without that fee, then your ability to compete has been reduced by that amount.

Fisheries committee  Yes. The Heiltsuk were not happy with their 240,000 pounds of quota, so they went out and, while the sac roe fishing fleet was operating in a legal and proper manner, they threw what we call “sea lion bombs”, which are small sticks of dynamite, into nets; they ran over nets with their speedboats and other boats; they threatened people with physical violence.

Fisheries committee  Yes, sir. I have here the MOU that the DFO, high up, and the Heiltsuk signed. It basically says that there will be no disruption of the roe herring fleet if you give us 92,000 pounds of roe-on-kelp.

Fisheries committee  That being said, the recovery of that 100 tonnes is only marketable on the kelp that you harvest. In an open pond, there is no web for them to spawn on. The spawn that doesn't go on your kelp will be distributed among the rocks and the other seaweed that happen to be in the area.

Fisheries committee  No, coast-wide, total allowable catch, or TAC, is allocated to spawn-on-kelp operators.

Fisheries committee  Yes.

Fisheries committee  Yes.